Hi all!

Ok, I have read all the fuzz about iStock lately, and maybe I'm crazy but I'd still like to be a contributor at iStock. So I'm going to submit some test-images and would really apreciate if you can give any advice or thoughts if these images will do at all. I do mostly studio shots of people, but I guess I have to show three different kind of images.

Here are the links:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/137172691/20120720_0050.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/137172691/20120905_0156.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/137172691/20120712_Composite_2.jpg

Thanks a lot for your help. Really  appreciate it!

Don't submit them. Most likely to be rejected  because
#1 Isolation
#2 artifact and lighting
#3 Isolation and chromatic aberration
Next time don't forget to watermark your images

1 - isolation is too harsh is some parts, the shorts on the left side have some blue fringing (CA)
2 - subject matter
3 - again isolation a little rough, feather it a bit, there is some CA too, its easy to remove, google about it pretty much new layer/hue saturation pick the color and decrease saturation until it looks normal, then you go back to your picture and brush it around the area, if you don't do the last step you will have a desaturated picture

from an istock exclusive
Removing Purple Fringing using Photoshop

I agree that you shouldn't submit any of these. You should get used to removing CA as a routine processing step (easy if you process RAW in Lightroom or Photoshop; works with JPEG too though I have no experience with tht)

Don't submit images with sample text - SS allows that but iStock will reject

The images all look a little soft to me

Thanks for your answers! As I said, great help and I really appreciate it!

Think any of these will be okay with the CA removed, and softening the isolations??

I don't think you ever want to soften isolations. In fact, one of the the problems with the fitness man's hair is that it is too jagged and not isolated enough. The fire extinguisher shot is not very strong commercially. iStock will typically accept these kind of images though, but I wouldn't use it for an initial submission. The isolation on the tool shot is pretty good, but there are a few spots that are problematic as well. I would try and submit other types of images that are more commercial and have less of a chance of being rejected because of technical issues. Meaning, I wouldn't submit shots that are isolations done by hand. What other subject do you have perhaps that you can submit. Also, as others mentioned the CA is a big issue and artifacting as well. Your images need to be really clean technically and still have a strong commercial presence. Hope that helps.

CA is extremely easy to remove from a JPG in PS. Copy the background layer first if you don't want to make any changes to the background layer itself (non destructive PS method). Then take the bush tool, change the brush mode to "color" and then sample an area of color directly adjacent to the area of CA. Set your bush opacity to about 40% and then start painting over the CA area on the copy of the background layer. Then watch your CA disappear. Fast and easy. Should only take a minute to fix a small area. Make sure though to color sample again next to the CA area if you move to work on another CA area of the photo.

Another technique I use sometimes is to desaturate the CA area. Add a hue/saturation adjustment layer. Set the hue saturation to about -80. Then Fill the mask on the adjustment layer with black. Then select white as your foreground color, select the paint brush, set opacity to about 40%, then click once on the mask to make it active, and finally start painting onto the area of CA. You will also see the CA start to disappear.

Hope that helps...

The question is: Do you want to be accepted at iStock quickly or do you want to challenge yourself?

In your application, you should go with simple, straight-forward pictures, clear focus, no noise, no motion, no composites (the "Your text goes here" will not be accepted at iStock, by the way).

Images that come out almost perfect out of camera, none where you need to challenge yourself to make the isolation perfect.

And when you have three pictures, try to treat them well, remove trademarks and logos, whatever minor technical issues you should still find. At the end, downsample them to the minimum size iStock asks for (I think it's still 1600x1200).

Try to avoid giving them any reason to reject your application. You will be able to learn enough from the rejections you will get later once accepted. 

Having just passed the test (Last Saturday) here are my thoughts-

1. No Isolation Shots (Too Many in their Inventory)
2. People Shots with different DOF doing something
3. ISO 100 - no noise (don't use any noise reduction software on your application test- too risky)
4. Keep as Bright as possible but no burnouts or blowouts

My pics were my daughter laying down on soccer field doing her homework at F/5.6, her in bed playing sick and me getting up in the morning looking at my alarm clock.

I wish I could find the string that I had the folks here look at to give me comments.

All three of these pics are selling well on all the other sites as well thus another indicator.


Tom

why does your profile say you already are an iS contributor?

and really, while all this is going on, you want in?

just to pass the test is good enough for me. and just maybe iStock will wake up and raise commissions to 50% and cancel all it partnerships and...

Thanks all for your help! Invaluable!

Will use some other pics I think. If anyone care to lock in my SS portfolio and have a look at what kind of images I could use for the test I'd be reallly happy. Ok, ok I know it is just the thumbnails and that we cant se if it is sharp enough, CA, isolation quality and so on, but I do think you can see if any of these images would be okay in a composition and light standpoint....

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-825676p1.html&rid=102

Thanks a lot!

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=121700980
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=122186320
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=122208121

Save yourself from sufferings and anger and leave istock alone.
Also their sales are going down the drain.

Focus on shutter instead, and produce more of what you have.

Let her take the test and pass. She can decide to submit pics for selling to them if she desires. I like the three pics from Shutter that luissantos84 picked.

Quote from: tab62 on January 16, 2013, 21:17
My pics were my daughter laying down on soccer field doing her homework at F/5.6, her in bed playing sick and me getting up in the morning looking at my alarm clock.
I wish I could find the string that I had the folks here look at to give me comments.

This one Tom?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/pics-for-comments-on-istock-submission/msg285164/#msg285164
Regards, David.

Surprised IS even have submission standards anymore. Are they afraid Google's leeches are going to be displeased with rough edges or imperfect isolations in their totally free images? It's silly to even try to submit there now. Just my 2-cents.

Is it not better to be part of the solution rather than by choice choosing to participate in the problem?


Adding more images and submitters to the IS site so that IS can make deals to give them away for free by the tens of millions is not to different than choosing to add a shovel of dirt to our own graves.

we could also see theese new applicants as scew-brakers.

I have deactivated my selling pictures at istock. I soffer a loss for a cause.

There is no way Im going to help new people get in and feed the evil emperor.

Im sorry.
I will be delighted to help with image critique or whatever, but not for that purpose.

Once again, thanks!

I set a goal for myself to be accepted at iStock, and I intend to pursue that goal. If/when I get in, I will evaluate if I should submit more images or not. Hopefully everything will work out for the best with iStock in the future and we can all be happy contributors again.

But anyway, kudos to all of you who spend your valuable time helping me to get there

not that valuable, good luck!

It is not you, Jens.

It is the place.
By applying you are going to be abused.

(yes, we share names)

Ok, what about these???
Downsized a bit and hopefully no visible CA left

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/137172691/20120601_0038.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/137172691/20120720_0015.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/137172691/20120920_0181.jpg

Thanks!!     

Hi Jens,

I am a newbie too and just like you acceptance as an IS contributor is my main goal. I have been accepted at DT & Fotolia (waiting for ss, Alamy, etc) but I regard IS as having the highest standards. I've been rejected once already for "too similar images" but I know that the real reason is that I don't have any people shots in the initial submission. My daughters will be my models for this project soon.

Your stuffs really good, in my humble opinion. Best  of luck!

Cheers,
Rodney

Quote from: rjaxon on January 18, 2013, 11:14
Hi Jens,

I am a newbie too and just like you acceptance as an IS contributor is my main goal. I have been accepted at DT & Fotolia (waiting for ss, Alamy, etc) but I regard IS as having the highest standards. I've been rejected once already for "too similar images" but I know that the real reason is that I don't have any people shots in the initial submission. My daughters will be my models for this project soon.

Your stuffs really good, in my humble opinion. Best  of luck!

Cheers,
Rodney

Thanks Rodney! And good luck to you too. And thanks for your kind words about my work . Still have a lot to learn and a long way to go though, but that is just part of the fun!